PC 040902 - Laserfiche WebLink

r Chairperson Maas moved to support the staff recommendation with the following: expand the EIR to: (1) definitely incorporate all safety issues (including the pedestrian and school safety issues), and (2) address the noise and air pollution issues and the cut-through traffic impacts consider the 2001 Baseline Traffic Report prepare some type of analysis of the funding sources conduct the studies concurrently with the Caltrans process incorporate all public verbal and written input in the EIR include the HOV auxiliary lanes which were part of PLANS 3C and 3D Pleasanton shall have control of the entire process and it is at their direction as to what gets studied staff shall come back to the Planning Commission with a plan as to how to proceed with the studies, including a presentation on the process, and what opportunities there will be for the Planning Commission's review and comments. Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion. ,,- Commissioner Sullivan advised that he will not support the motion. He further advised that he disagrees with the staff's recommendation that the alternatives should be looked at "even- handedly." He stated that he thinks the mission statement of the Committee was to remove the West Las Positas Interchange and develop an alternative to do that and he thinks that is what the Committee has done. He stated that this should be the focus of additional studies. He noted that the focus of the Commission's recommendation should be to do the studies necessary to remove the Interchange. Commissioner Sullivan advised that he thinks it would be better to do the pedestrian, safety, and cut-through traffic studies independently of any Caltrans process. He noted that he would like the City to determine the best approach prior to starting any Caltrans process. He commented that the issues they are talking about can be studied independently of Caltrans as they have nothing to do with the freeway. He stated that if the studies were completed and the focus of what the City would be doing is narrowed, it may reduce the ultimate cost of the environmental work that needs to be done. Commissioner Arkin stated that he has a problem because he feels the Committee did not finish its work. He noted that he felt many members of the Committee wanted to work with staff to get a handle on the safety issues. He stated that the problem with going in the direction that the Planning Commission is suggesting is that it will be staff-driven process and the opportunity for public input would be limited to the formal hearings, and this means the community will not be part of the process of developing a solution. Discussion ensued regarding the potential of involving the Committee members further in the study process. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Lum described how the outreach program process would function. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Kameny, Maas, and Roberts NOES: Commissioners Arkin and Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2002 Page 14